Appeal No. 2005-0461
Application No. 10/171,031
We will not sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
1-7 and 13-16, which recite at least one boss on each side of the
tub (claim 1) and a recess in the side of the tub (claim 13).
Becker provides no teaching or suggestion of having a coacting
relationship between the hinge and the tub. Insofar as Lotz also
fails to provide such a teaching or suggestion, the combined
teachings of the references do not result in the claimed
invention. Consequently, the requisite factual support for the
prima facie case of obviousness is lacking. Accordingly, we are
constrained to reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
1-7 and 13-16.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7 and 13-16 is reversed, whereas the
rejections of claims 8-12 and 17-21 are sustained. Hence, the
examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-
part.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007